On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:27 PM, Dan M wrote: >> When he's not shilling for the Bush administration's kill- >> em-all-let-God-sort-em-out approach to global politics, his >> obvious intelligence shines through. > > Sigh, you know this reinforces my understanding of what the > internet is > doing for public discourse. Instead of discussions in stable > neighborhoods, which often have a diversity of opinion in them, there > are enough people on the net to find small sub-sets of opinion that do > not threaten one's own.
Calling Gautam a "shill for ... Bush ..." was possibly inaccurate, and certainly "shrill". Forgive my pedantry, but "shill" -- literally, someone allied with the "house" who places bets to attract customers and figuratively, someone associated with a "seller" (of products or politics) who pretends to be independent while selling their wares -- is quite a different word from "shrill". > Gautam was on record here as rating Bush as a D- president, and > weighing > whether to vote for Bush or Kerry. That put him pretty well in the > middle of the country. He was very well respected by liberal Harvard > luminaries in political science, like Stanley Hoffman. How in the > world > is that possible if he were no more than a Bush shrill? He is evidently much more than a Bush shill, but I perceived him as being too caught up in the administration's world-view. The perception may have been wrong. > He has strong differences with many on this list, including me, on > a number > of subjects...but that's no more accurate than calling your position > "America is always wrong". It has been said. I shrug it off the best I can, but sometimes, I take it personally and respond inappropriately in ways that do not move a friendly conversation forward. Ah, well... IAAFMOAFH: I am a faulty member of a flawed humanity. > What I still don't understand is why people don't want to know the > actual > viewpoints of folks they don't agree with. Do you really not understand that, Dan? You are a bright, articulate guy, and I think you understand human nature better than that statement suggests. People resist the subtleties of others' viewpoints because they dig in in an argument, and seriously considering the others' point of view would weaken their position. Call it weakness, call it efficiency, call it what you will, it is human nature, and it is difficult to overcome. IAAFMOAFC Dave _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
